Hahnemann in his writings, delineated disease into two categories. He noted that people suffered from one of two types of disease processes. There is the lifelong chronic disease process with suffering and the continued deterioration of health manifesting itself in a progressive destructive manner. Then there is the acute disease process, which depending on its severity will either lead to death or recovery.
At the time of case taking the practitioner is faced with altered sensations and symptoms of which the totality constitutes the reason for a prescription and from which symptoms the practitioner deems important to use.
Hahnemann wrote in aphorism 17
Now, as in the cure effected by the removal of the whole of the perceptible signs and symptoms of the disease the internal alteration of the vital force to which the disease is due, consequently the whole of the disease, is at the same time removed. It follows that the physician has only to remove the whole of the symptoms in order, at the same time to abrogate and violate the internal change, that is to say, the morbid arrangements of the vital force, consequently the totality of the disease, the disease itself. But when the disease is annihilated the health is restored and this is the highest, the sole aim of the physician.
In aphorism 17 it would seem that Hahnemann’s conclusion was that you remove the symptoms of the disease and the internal disease process would be cured, that is to say the disease itself. However in his continuing clinical investigations he wrote in the book the chronic diseases that non-venereal diseases although properly removed by the due application of symptom matching would return in a varied form, new symptoms would appear with an increase in new complaints.
For the observing homeopathic physician, this would be a clue that the disease before him in its entirety of symptoms, was part of a deeper seated disease. So bearing this in mind Hahnemann concluded that in cases like this, there was an original infection of which the presenting complaint was just an expression of a much deeper disorder.
I have concluded, after reading the many writings on miasms by various authors, that the term chronic is not used in the sense of the disease being long-lasting. John Henry Clark alluded in his writings that the term chronic referred to a disease of which the causation due to a poison or infection and had a development in the manifestation of symptoms which was chronic. In this sense the disease Syphilis would be a chronic disease whether or not the symptoms are acute or long-lasting.
Hahnemann did not change his mind regarding the methodology of ascertaining the symptoms for prescribing. What he did was recognise the deeper nature of a chronic disease and found a way to combat it. However he also recognised that it is a difficult process with complications, especially if primary infections join together in an organism.
It is a source of deep sadness that modern homoeopaths do not take the time to study the nature of disease and apply the correct methodology for removing the disorders in a correct manner. It will require application on the part of the individual practitioner to examine each and every case in the light of Hahnemann’s findings and remove the false Kentian overlay. Hahnemann’s understanding of chronic disease is the basis for modern medicine today, in terms of infection and reaction. It would be better than every homeopath put aside all their teaching from the schools and colleges and just go back to reading the Organon and the chronic diseases and comprehend so they understand clearly what is being taught.